Panneerselvam vs Muthu Thiagarajan Chettiar

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Panneerselvam, the proprietor of typewriting institute, the tenant under the respondent having lost in both the

forums by the order of eviction has filed this civil revision petition.

The respondent, landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal use u/s 10(3)(a)(iii). Both the Rent Controller as well as the

Appellate Authority concluded that the requirement for personal use was bonafide and the tenant is liable to be evicted.

Mr. Uthirasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing both the orders, would contend that the eviction petition filed by the

respondent is not maintainable and that admittedly the premises was let out to the petitioner by the respondent for running the educational institution

viz., typewriting institute. It is also pointed out on the basis of the documents filed in this case that there is a Government recognition as well for

running the said institute in the said premises.

In Mothi Sampoornammal Trust and Mothi S. Rajamannar Vs. Mohammed Hanif and Others, , this Court had an occasion to deal with the

question as to whether the application for eviction could be entertained against the educational institution which has been approved by the

Government. It is also submitted that when the tenant is an educational institution, no order of eviction could be passed as per Section 10(4)(ii) of

the Act. This Court in the decision cited supra would hold as follows:

The provisions of Section 10(4)(2) of the Act may apply, and the requisites to be satisfied are: there must beetting, it must be for use as an

educational institution and the building still be used for the purpose, and, further, the institution should be one that has been recognised by the

Government, or any authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, and lastly such recognition must continue at the relevant date.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the materials on record would make it clear that these requisites have been satisfied. However, as

pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this point was not raised and argued either before the rent controller or before the

Appellate Authority, though there was a specific ground as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the appeal grounds filed before the Appellate Authority. It

is seen that there is no discussion about this point in both the impugned orders. Therefore, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the

Appellate Authority to give opportunity to the petitioner to argue this point on the strength of the decision referred to above.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and remitted back for the limited purpose for deciding the point indicated above. The Appellate

Authority is directed to dispose of the matter by giving opportunity to counsel for both parties within two months from the date of communication

of this order.

With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of.